The Committee was appointed by the President to review the geographic
distribution of the membership of the Board, pursuant to a provision in
the by-laws, and asked to provide the Board with a recommendation as to
whether or not the distribution should be changed.

The Committee has reviewed the relevant documentary information and
consulted the membership. The Committee finds no compelling reason to
change the geographical distribution and, accordingly, recommends that
the distribution remain as at present.

Background

The last major changes to the composition of the Board of the Canadian
Mathematical Society were implemented through a change to the by-laws in
June 1989. Article 8.3 of the `General Operating By-Law' requires that,
"The geographical distribution (of the Board) shall be reviewed by the
Board from time to time, at least once every ten years." In September
1997, the President, Katherine Heinrich appointed an `ad hoc' committee
consisting of Peter Borwein (Simon Fraser), Dan Britten (Windsor), Paul
Gauthier (Montreal) and Jon Thompson (UNB) to conduct a review and report
to the Board.

At present, the Board is comprised of 33 directors. The majority of the
directors are elected on a geographical basis. There are four regions,
consisting of the Atlantic Provinces, Quebec, Ontario, and the Western
Provinces and Territories. There are 6 elected officers: the President,
the immediate Past President or the President-Elect and 4 Vice-Presidents
("No two of the vice-presidents shall come from the same region"). In
addition there are 22 elected directors, allotted geographically: 4 each
from the Atlantic and Quebec regions, 6 each from the Ontario and Western
regions, and 2 At Large. The 5 remaining positions are filled through
appointment by the Board.

For some years prior to 1989, the Board had 34 members, distributed in a
similar way among the four regions, but there were only 3 vice-presidents
(no 2 of whom could be from the same region). In June 1989, the Board
total was reduced to 31, with the geographical distribution adjusted
somewhat. A fourth vice-president was added, in order to ensure that each
region had one. In December 1989, electoral provisions for the presidency
were changed, to allow for a one-year President-Elect, a two-year
President and a one-year Past-President. In June 1997, provision was made
for two appointed student directors, increasing the total membership to
the present 33.

The Committee reviewed relevant documents and other information. These
include the `General Operating By-Law' (a consolidation of all by-laws),
a historical summary of changes in Board composition and a list of
members of the Society as distributed by province. We wish to express
thanks and appreciation to Graham Wright and Monique Bouchard of the CMS
office for prompt and helpful assistance in providing this information.

The Committee consulted the membership through electronic mail. A
memorandum requesting views on geographic distribution of board membership
was sent out on the `cmath-l' list-server twice, on March 10 and on April
3, 1998. Not all members are on this list, but departmental Chairs were
asked to distribute the memo to their colleagues. We received
confirmation that a number of Chairs did this and we wish to thank them
for this assistance.

The memo included the following paragraphs.

"In asking for comments on the present composition, the committee is
especially interested in hearing whether members of the Society consider
that there are, or are not, serious problems. For members who consider
that there are serious problems with the functioning of the Board as
presently constituted, we would appreciate a specific description; in such
event, we would equally welcome detailed suggestions as to how changes in
the composition might relieve perceived problems.

In reporting to the Board, in the event we ultimately propose changes in
the geographical distribution (including possibly the numerical
composition), we will be expected to address the issues of how any such
changes would improve the functioning of the Board, and whether there
would be budgetary implications."

The Committee conducted its business mainly by electronic mail, but held
a meeting by conference call on May 7 to discuss the information received
and reach a conclusion.

Findings

We were very pleased that a number of members took the time to respond to
our request, in March and in April. Several, in particular, provided us
with quite detailed analyses of the board composition and discussed the
advantages and disadvantages of various types of changes which might be
made. The responses were very helpful to us and we wish to express thanks
and appreciation to all who responded.

The overwhelming majority of responses, including all those providing
detailed analyses, advised us that the Board has been functioning well and
that a change to the current geographic distribution would almost
certainly cause difficulties, while presenting no certainty in regard to
substantive benefits. Among those responding in detail were several
officers of the Society with extensive service on the Board in the period
since 1989, when the last major changes were made.

Only one response proposed a change in geographic distribution, to strict
numerical representation in proportion to number of members in each region,
but no detailed argument was offered. A few other comments were received
on other aspects of Board composition, such as its overall size, but these
issues did not, in our view, fall within our mandate under the by-laws.

All of the evidence available to us indicates that the Board has been
functioning well, and that the present distribution of its membership
provides an appropriate and adequate balance of regional representation.
No evidence suggests any certain, substantial benefit which would be
gained by making a change to the distibution of either the
vice-presidential positions or of the other elected board positions.
Conversely, effecting a change would almost certainly result in protracted
discussions which would deflect the Board from its central tasks and would
risk generating regional alienation.

We conclude that there is no compelling reason for a change at this
time. The by-laws provide for future reviews, so that if some
relevant factor were to change in time, then the matter of geographic
distribution can be revisited.

Recommendation

The Committee unanimously recommends that the geographic distribution of
the Board membership not be changed.